Hebrews for its part is Redemptive-Historical theology par excellence as it elaborates the nature of the prophetic word, the Sabbath, priesthood and Mosaic order, and the New Covenant, along with questions of faith and its resulting ethics and imperatives.
In every case, the Old Testament is utilised and organically
connected to the Church but the emphasis is repeatedly made – the New Covenant is superior and brings
with it a higher realisation and calling. In these last days, we have the final
Word. The Sabbath is heaven itself and the eschatologically rooted life implies
a call to daily perseverance and worship. The Mosaic order is abrogated as we
are now under the 'better' priesthood of Melchizedek. Indeed it's not too
strongly put to say the New Covenant is superior to the Old which was (as it
stood) defective. We are called to not merely emulate Old Testament saints who
came to the typological mount that could be touched (as awesome as it was) but
to the true Mount Zion, the City of the Living God.
Theological systems which do not have a proper grasp or
ability to utilise redemptive-historical categories are bound to mis-read
Romans and in almost every case grossly misread and misinterpret a book such as
Hebrews.**
In terms of other 'longer' works, we must consider the
gospels and many are already aware of how Matthew is written more with a Jewish
audience in mind, while Luke's writings have a decidedly Gentile flavour. John,
which stands apart from its synoptic cousins represents a different thematic
arrangement of the narrative and some of the most profound passages of
spiritual insight and enlargement found in the New Testament. John is actually
one of the most difficult books in the New Testament – in its profundity and structure.
I think it a great error that many recommend it to neophytes. John is not the
best place to start. In terms of introduction for a new or potential convert,
Mark is in reality the best option in its simplicity, straightforwardness, and
brevity. John is likely to overwhelm people, this despite its famous John 3.16
passage, which has often been misused in its equation of salvation with some
kind of dramatic experience.***
Apart from gospels, the other books of size would have to
include the Corinthian epistles.
While most of the focus on 1 Corinthians seems to deal with
ecclesiology, I have long been struck by the profundity of its epistemological
message. Paul provides extensive prolegomena – epistemic foundations for a
critique of the Corinthians worldliness which is seemingly rooted in
philosophic compromise. The potential import of this message for today's Church
cannot be overstated and yet it's missed, often ignored, and in other cases
distorted – especially by those who have fused Christian epistemology with
classical and/or Enlightenment thought – let alone tradition.
He hits various doctrinal points along the way – the Church vis-à-vis
the world, the Church versus the idols, and yet so often this is couched in
redemptive-historical terms. Chapter 10 tells us that the Church's experience
in the world was foreshadowed in Old Testament Israel – not the idea of a
political order, as he dispenses with the very notion in chapters 5 and 6.
Rather, the threats and dangers to the Church are the temptation of idolatry
and of falling away – another teaching that is replete throughout the New
Testament but ignored and repudiated by large sections of the Evangelical and
Calvinist spheres.
Even Paul's teaching regarding the resurrection and its
centrality to the gospel is rooted in redemptive-history, the question of the
first and second Adams and the like. In every case the relationship between the
Old and New Testaments is addressed and we see a dynamic at work, a
relationship of both unity and disunity, of continuity and discontinuity, of
anticipation and fulfillment. Christ is everywhere in the Old Testament, the
entire Mosaic order anticipates Him. And yet in another sense, Moses (or the
Mosaic order as it stands) can be contrasted with Christ and looked at as an
administration of judgment and even death. These types of dynamics which are
clearly at work in the Corinthian epistles defy easy systematic explanation as
they seem at odds with the basic canons of logic – so essential to constructing
a cohesive system.
But neither Paul nor
any of the apostles are engaged in systematics and their use of logic is
subordinated to revelation and to the person and work of Christ – the
Incarnation itself defying all logical formulations. Their focus is not on
building an airtight logically coherent system but in revealing Christ and
God's work in history. This is not an abandonment of reason or the kind of
basic logic needed to communicate but the purpose, premise, and telos of what
Scripture is – is quite different than how we find it typically handled by philosopher-systematicians
and those who would limit knowledge and communication to propositional
categories.
2 Corinthians treats apostolic authority as being rooted in
eschatology – the notion of eternality explaining our calling as Christians and
the suffering of the apostles as ambassadors of the Holy Kingdom. That
authority is central to understanding the uniqueness of the apostolic office
and by both explicit statement and inference – this reality grants the status
of canonicity to their Spirit-inspired writings.
These claims rooted in the redemptive-historical purpose of
the cross and its eschatological message regarding the judgment of this world
and the consequent hope of the New Heavens and New Earth are essential to
countering the claims of the Hellenistic-Judaizing false apostles which
overshadow the apostolic writings and their ministries. They're always in the
background, working to corrupt the Church. On the one hand the epistles (under
inspiration of the Holy Spirit) are written in a way in which the errors being combated
are vague enough to give the writings a timeless and universal quality in terms
of application. On the other hand, careful scrutiny reveals something of what
was being contested and while the errors at times resonate with the full-blown
Christian Gnosticism that would appear later, there are differences, sometimes
quite significant and qualitative. But what is most striking is that while the
forms and framing narratives are different, the errors which haunt the epistles
also overshadow Church history up to the present hour. The condemnations of
Paul, Peter, John, and Jude jump out from the page and sound the alarm
throughout history and are no less relevant today. The progeny of the false
apostles yet live and they are not idle.
Finally, the Apocalypse or the Book of Revelation is not
merely a book for the terminal generation in history but it provides a sweeping
overview of Church History and as such provides a philosophy of Church History,
a proper Spirit-inspired (albeit highly limited and restrained) historiography.
The focus is not one of Historicism, the old hermeneutic that read Revelation
as a literal and linear unfolding of Church History. This is to miss the point
of the visions and to fall into subjectivism. Rather, like its predecessors in
Daniel and elsewhere, the focus is eschatological and the series of visions
encapsulates the entirety of the Church Age. The imagery is rooted in Old
Testament 'apocalyptic' forms and yet the message is appropriately one of Christocentric
New Covenant focus.
Growing up in Dispensationalist circles, for years I largely avoided
the book as a frustrating enigma. I was also lost at that time and thus I do
believe the Scriptures were more or less closed to me. After my conversion, I
was able to step back and see the forest through the trees (as it were) and the
book came alive and remains an oft-read favourite and a source of great
encouragement – as it was meant to be. The nature of Revelation including its
dynamic use of Old Testament imagery makes it the perfect conclusion to New
Covenant revelation – and the anticipation of the next chapter that is yet to
come – and yet in the Spirit the glories of that Age are already experienced.
This is not to suggest there's some kind of divine ordering
to the placement of books within the canon as one might find in some circles
that have embraced a heretical double-inspiration view of the King James Version
of the English Bible. But at the same time Revelation was certainly written
last, by the last apostle and as such at the end of the apostolic period. It
was the final word for the Church which had begun to move beyond its founding
and had already seen and experienced shocking things – the persecutions of Nero
and Domitian and the destruction of Israel and its temple. These events along
with apostasies and internal dangers were just a foretaste of what was to come
and yet standing on the doctrinal shoulders of the rest of the New Testament
canon, there was and is every reason to hope.
It's one thing to follow a Bible reading plan. That's
certainly better than nothing but I have always encouraged family, friends, and
others to wrestle with the text. It takes some time and energy and often it
helps to have someone as a foil. If you have such a brother or sister who will
work through the passages with you – count yourself blessed. Over time the
Scriptures begin to really 'open up' and you start to see how things tie
together – not in terms of a grand system per se, but in terms of what is being
revealed, the flow of argument, the nature of the Kingdom and what the apostles
were doing and saw themselves as doing.
Take up and read. We are people of the Book. In the New
Covenant order we are given about 300 pages to ponder, a relatively small
amount if one thinks about it. And yet it is inexhaustible. The more voluminous
Old Covenant writings are obviously of great value and need to be read as well
– but again, only in light of the New. That dynamic alone is enough to generate
a lifetime of study and reflection. One can read the Scriptures continuously
and never exhaust them. It is a collection of books unlike any other, but this
knowledge can only be revealed by the Spirit, a point many have forgotten and
others clearly do not understand.
----
**I think for example of the many discussions my friends and
I had over the questions of the ordo
salutis in Romans and how that interacts with a systematic theology –
questions that were misguided at best and often sidetracked, ultimately
becoming a waste of time and great mental energy.
***This may or may not be the case for all, but the 'Born
Again' experience is hardly the sum and total of what needs to be understood
and said about salvation. John 3.16 has been made into a kind of canon within a
canon and used to construct a soteriological system which in the end actually
discounts much of what the New Testament has to say. Yes, we must be born
again, regenerate, and renewed, but that's more than a one-time event or
dramatic experience. It's a call to a new life and a new kind of life.